SITAROPOULOS AND GIAKOUMOPOULOS v. GREECE JUDGMENT 25 78. Mention should also be made of the initiative taken in 2009 aimed at enacting the legislation provided for by Article 51 § 4 of the Constitution, in the form of a bill placed before Parliament on 19 February 2009 by the Interior, Justice and Economics Ministers laying down the arrangements for the exercise of voting rights in parliamentary elections by expatriate Greek voters. The bill was not passed as it failed to secure the two-thirds majority of the total number of members of parliament required by Article 51 § 4 of the Constitution as amended following the 2001 constitutional revision. 79. Lastly, as regards the specific situation of the applicants, the Court has no reason to doubt their assertion that they maintain close and continuing links with Greece and follow political, economic and social developments in the country closely, with the aim of playing an active part in the country’s affairs. The presumption that non-resident citizens are less directly or less continually concerned with the country’s day-to-day problems and have less knowledge of them (see paragraph 69 above) does not therefore apply in the instant case. Nevertheless, in the Court’s view, this is not sufficient to call into question the legal situation in Greece. In any event, the competent authorities cannot take account of every individual case in regulating the exercise of voting rights, but must lay down a general rule (see Hilbe, cited above). 80. As to the disruption to the applicants’ financial, family and professional lives that would have been caused had they had to travel to Greece in order to exercise their right to vote in the 2007 parliamentary elections, the Court is not convinced that this would have been disproportionate to the point of impairing the very essence of the voting rights in question. 3. Conclusion 81. Having regard to the foregoing considerations, it cannot be said that the very essence of the applicants’ voting rights guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 was impaired in the instant case. Accordingly, there has been no breach of that provision. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.